THE FINAL DESTINATION 3D.

I've been a fan of the Final Destination series since the beginning. I maintain that the first one is still the best, but the sequels are entertaining enough. The second movie added an interesting twist to the story, and some say it's better than the original. Then came the third, where it dropped some of the darkness and started to cliche and camp it up. The fourth follows the same path.

The story is basically the same for each film (the second's is slightly altered due to the twist, but is nonetheless the same). This time around, the film starts off at a Nascar race, where a series of events unfolds until a lot of people--including the main characters--die. However, one of them, this time a young man named Nick (Bobby Campo), foresees it in a vision and warns everybody to leave ASAP. So the friends, as well as some others that are dragged into the mix, leave right before the accident occurs. These include friends Lori (Shantel VanSanten), Hunt (Nick Zano), and Janet (Haley Webb), as well as a security guard (Mykelti Williamson), a racist (Justin Welborn), a mechanic (Andrew Fiscella), and a mother (Krista Allen). But what they soon realize is that they were never supposed to survive, and Death comes after them in the order they were supposed to die, killing them off in unique and imaginative ways.

I had a few problems with this film that I didn't really have with the others (even the third). In the past films, the clues about how the next person was going to die was reality-based and simple. This time, the main character has full-out (though vague) visions of exactly how the next person is going to die. My problem is that this takes away some of the mystery... not to mention it gives us some pretty campy CGI.

Though the deaths were still creative, and there are plenty of fake-outs (you think it'll be one thing, and it's another). One particularly suspenseful scene is the beauty salon scene. I was cringing the entire time, as it sets up about a dozen different ways she can go. Of course, it goes with the least interesting. On a similar note, practically all the deaths are given away in the trailer, which took away a lot of the suspense (there is one pleasant surprise... one that doesn't actually happen, but I won't give away which one). And the climax is pretty suspenseful, I'll give it that.

However, another issue is that while they were creative, they weren't nearly as creative as some of the previous films. The previous movies sometimes acted more like a Rube Goldberg machine, which is totally interesting. And you see that used in these, but mostly as fake-outs, while the real deaths are a little more lame (not always, but sometimes). Also, a lot of the deaths were mainly caused by the stupidity of workers. At least half, if not more, of the deaths could have been prevented if everybody in that town who had a job was actually competent. Seriously, there should be a lot of people getting fired.

I also saw the film in 3D, and the 3D was definitely utilized. Things flew at you left and right during the death scenes. So if you go to see this in 3D, you won't be disappointed.

The one thing I absolutely loved about the movie, though, were all the allusions and homages to the first film. You can still see 180 all over the place. The main guy has a picture of the Eiffel Tower in his house. The name of the swimming pool place is "Clear Rivers." If you look closely on the TV at one point, I believe it says the name of the racist is "Carter." And just a whole other slew of things that, if you pay attention, you'll see. There's at least one in every scene (or just about).

There really isn't much more to say. There's some decent humor in the movie. There's a particularly funny scene with a talk about suicide (I know not a happy subject, but in context, it's funny). But otherwise, it's just a movie to see if you're a fan of the series. You don't really feel anything for the characters, and the acting is pretty bad. But you came to see the movie for creative deaths, and on that front, the movie delivers. In almost all respects, the movie isn't all that great, but it's still strangely entertaining. Though I totally miss the Tony Todd character from the first two films. He was awesome.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

Short Review: Attack The Gas Station!

Premise: Four friends with troubled pasts rob a gas station. A little bit later, just out of pure boredom, they decide to rob it again. But since the station only has a little money, they decide to take everyone hostage and run the gas station themselves and rip off the customers... which just continues to escalate, and nobody (including the cops) is ever the wiser.

Starring: Sung-jae Lee, Oh-seong Yu, Seong-jin Kang, Ji-tae Yu, Yeong-gyu Park, Jun Jeong, and Yu-won Lee. 

My Reaction: I'm always on the lookout for a good heist movie. With a high score on imdb and a great premise, this one was promising. And "promising" is about where it stays. I have a feeling that the movie is primarily for South Korean audiences, and some things were missing in translation. There were some fun or funny bits, but they were too few and far between. I didn't care for any of the characters. The movie is entirely too long (about the 45 minute mark, I thought it had to be about over. But there was still over an hour to go). The movie is often slapstick, and sometimes just strange, though mostly unrealistic. Though the acting is good, and it has a good climax. There are bits of the story that I would have liked to see delved into more, but which weren't. I honestly believe (and I felt this way while watching the movie) that, if handled right, with just the right things cut/changed/added, it would make a good American remake. As it is, the movie has a good stylistic eye, but there aren't enough "that's cool" moments to win the style over substance fight. It should have been more thrilling in the suspense moments. It should have been funnier in the comedy moments (though that's probably where a lot of the 'lost in translation' comes in). But for the most part, it just feel a bit too muddled and overlong. It's not a bad movie by any means. I just don't think it lived up to its promise, or the bits of inspiration it showed at times during the film.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

DISTRICT 9.

Not everybody will "get" this movie. I'd place bets that at least half the people who see it will probably not like it. I wager that based on, as I walk out of the theater, I hear a redneck on his cell phone telling somebody not to bother seeing the movie because it sucked. Seconds later, I hear some teen girls talking about how cool the weapons were.

There are three types of "good" movies, in my mind. The first is the "entertaining" movie. This can be anything from a cheap B-movie to a brainless Hollywood blockbuster. As long as it's entertaining and fun, it's all good. Then there is the "respectable" movie. These movies aren't entertaining, per se, but they're respectable in what they pull off. In other words, these are mostly your Oscar-bait films. And then there's the most difficult to pull off, the "respectable and entertaining" film. These can be deep in theme and purpose, high class films... but they're still entertaining and fun to watch. They aren't your run-of-the-mill depressing Oscar-bait film. District 9 tries to pull off this third type. Does it do it? Yes and no.

The movie is an alternate history movie, wherein aliens landed over Johannesburg, Africa in the 80s. They're subjected to slums, poor treatment, and basic apartheid behavior. And now the government agency in charge of controlling them (as well as their weapons, which only the aliens can operate) is wanting to move them into what is essentially a concentration camp. Enter Wikus (Sharlto Copley), a young man who just doesn't know any better and is promoted to the in-charge position of this eviction and transfer mission. But something happens on this trip, and it starts to change him... inside and out. Wikus starts becoming one of these aliens and goes on the run, learning more what it's like to be on the other side, while continuing to try and recover his old life.

I said before that the movie tries to be both respectable and entertaining. And it succeeds at both... for the most part. I knew while watching the movie that I was seeing something special. This is a highly respectable film in many ways, from its apartheid themes and symbolisms all the way to its stunning visual effects. And its visuals are oh-so-stunning.

And the movie is entertaining, as well. All the action/suspense scenes, primarily anything where alien weaponry is used, is amazingly awesome. Those are truly the best parts of the film. But what takes it all away for me, what ultimately stops the film--in my opinion--from being totally outstanding, is its main character. Wikus is likable at times, but I found him to be a mostly unlikable character. The majority of what he did was wrong or selfish, and I couldn't latch on to him. Moreso than him being unlikable (because really, I didn't hate the guy), he just didn't make me care about him. I cared more about Christopher and his son (the two main aliens) than Wikus. Now those two characters were incredibly likable. But unfortunately, the film focuses more on Wikus.

Another issue was that the beginning "documentary" bits went on way too long. I felt those could have been trimmed down a bit. I know it was adding realism and setting up the movie, but it felt like 30 minutes of exposition... and the worst kind, too, where the characters are actually talking to you, right into the camera. I started wondering if it was ever going to end, or if the whole movie was gonna be like that. Thankfully it stopped, but it could have stopped sooner (it does come back to it from time to time, but I didn't mind, as there was plenty of "movie" bits in between, if that makes sense).

Anyway, I really do respect what the movie did and what it represents. And I also think the movie was rather entertaining, primarily the action bits with the alien weaponry. I also enjoyed the realism of the film, as well as how seamless the CGI and other visuals were with the rest of the movie. But it still had some issues. Besides what I already said, there is still something I can't put my finger on. But it was just something about the film itself that makes me not enjoy it as much as I want to. After all, I went into this movie with average expectations, so I really didn't go in with any reason to be let down. And on one level I wasn't, but on some strange level, I was. Still, the movie is respectable and entertaining... I just wish it could have solved a few of the aforementioned issues.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

A PERFECT GETAWAY.

I wasn't sure from the trailers if I wanted to see it or not (I like Steve Zahn, Milla Jovovich, and Timothy Olyphant), but then I found out it was written and directed by David Twohy, who also wrote/directed one of my favorite horror films, Pitch Black (and later The Chronicles of Riddick). It bumped up much higher on my list. And then I started reading really good reviews for it, which bumped it up more. So I finally went and saw this yesterday.

A Perfect Getaway (double entendre and all) is about newlywed couple Cliff (Steve Zahn) and Cydney (Milla Jovovich), honeymooning in Hawaii. Along the way they meet creepy hitchhikers, Kale (Chris Hemsworth) and Cleo (Marley Shelton). And not long after that, they meet the slightly strange, but mostly endearing couple Nick (Timothy Olyphant) and Gina (Kiele Sanchez). But then they discover that on the neighboring island of Oahu, there was a murder, and the police are looking for a man and woman couple as suspects. And with all three couples having been on Oahu on the day of the murder, it could have been any of them... though nobody's about to come out and point fingers.

The movie isn't the horror/slasher flick that the trailer makes it out to be. This film is more of a slow-burn paranoid thriller with the action picking up in the third act. And although it does make you second guess yourself on who you think the killer is, your first instinct is probably right. I figured it out just by watching the trailer... but that doesn't necessarily ruin a movie for me. I did the same thing for the film Identity, and I still really liked that movie. Though, while you might guess the whodunit, you might not figure out the whydunit. I felt that really helped bring it up a few notches to save it from overall predictability. The writing of the film was so detailed and great that everything is kept ambiguous and out in the open to keep you second guessing yourself, only to figure out later how all of those second guessing moments fit together with the plot. And, again, the WHY was so much more interesting than the WHO (I'd actually go out on a limb and say that David Twohy knew this from the start and focused on the story more than relying on the whodunit twist).

As for the actors, they all did a pretty good job. Milla Jovovich has some good moments, and Steve Zahn really does a bang-up job. The other couple (Marley Shelton and Chris Hemsworth) aren't really in the movie all that much, but they do an all-around decent job of being creepy. But the true scene stealer is Timothy Olyphant. Seriously, this guy really stole the show. He was charismatic, interesting, and sometimes a little strange. But he really pulls it off and becomes the real star of the movie.

Something else I really liked about the movie was its meta-qualities. It's a movie that talks about movies, as Zahn's character is a screenwriter. And, of course, like in Scream, there are things that are discussed about the genre at hand that must always happen (red herrings, the second-act twist).

As I said before, the movie is a slow-burner. It builds up the suspense and paranoia (and the clues) until the third act. And then, after the red herrings and the second-act twist, the movie really shifts into gear. And it really changes in all respects. The action in non-stop, keeping the adrenaline pumping until the end. Even the gore--as before this point, there really isn't any at all--picks up. It's not overwhelming for people who can't handle gore; it's not Saw-level or anything. The film also becomes rather stylish. There are some flashback moments that explain scenes earlier in the film, and then there are some other flashback moments that take us before that to do a bit of character building and other explanations. And all of these moments are done in a silvery overtone that looks pretty cool. Then, when the chasing starts, there's an awesome bit where the screen keeps shifting in these wipe-kinda things that looks really cool and was a great little bit of editing. And then the overall use of the camera in general.

Overall, the movie was very good. It had beautiful shots of the island, great camera and editing work, good-to-great acting, some really fun characters, and great writing with a surprisingly intriguing story (once it all comes to light). The only things I could point out as negative were that it is a slow-burn and therefore has moments that almost drag before picking up again, as well as that the movie is a bit predictable. But again, I think the movie and story was good enough to trump the predictability. So really, it was another good job by Mr. Twohy.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

DVD Review: Dakota Skye.

This movie is equally brilliant as it is aggravating. Dakota Skye (Eileen Boylan) has a superpower: she can tell when people are lying and know exactly what they really mean. And because of this, her life has made her very cynical and grumpy to the point where she even hates being around her best friend. Her boyfriend, Kevin (J.B. Ghuman Jr.), is an older guy, in a band, and is part time nice guy, part time daft jerk. But then his best friend in the world, Jonah (Ian Nelson), comes to visit from New York, and he turns Dakota's world upside down. How? Apparently, he never lies, which intrigues her immensely. He's like her arch-nemesis. The problem is... what happens when they fall for each other, especially since that leaves Kevin's emotions at play.

The movie is witty, clever, and--at times--genius. Seriously, there are some amazingly written (and acted) moments in this film--for instance, the "I can't tell you" scene with Jonah, or Dakota's internal monologue at the movie theater. The movie has some great ideas, as well. The problem is that the movie falls short at times of what it could have been with some of the ideas it presents. For every brilliantly written or acted scene, there seems to be a mediocre one (OK, so maybe the ratio is a little closer to the brilliant side). Though I did really like the main quirk of the film: whenever somebody said a lie, there would be a subtitle of what was really meant, which we knew Dakota knew, as well.

But my biggest issue falls with Dakota herself. While the actress who plays her is hot (or at least more than the "medium-cute" as she describes herself), she's a completely and utterly unlikable character. I know most of that is the point, but something could have been done to make her more likable, or at least shown some kind of change earlier in the film. Instead, the movie has her play with people's emotions and makes her that much more unlikable. Parts of her actually reminded me of Bella from the Twilight series (I don't think she's that bad, though). She has quite a bit of voice-over narration, especially toward the beginning, and most of that is really good--especially for voice-over narration. But it's the way she acts in person. In other words, she's totally Emo.

Part of the problem could also be due to the writing of boyfriend Kevin. At times, the character is presented as a douche (though unintentional on his part) who treats Dakota like crap. But other times, he was a pretty decent person, and I felt bad for him for how Dakota was treating him. If he was written as more of a total jerk, maybe her transition to Jonah wouldn't have made her look as bad as I felt it did.

But at the same time, these things fall under one of the movie's strengths: its realism. From the dialogue down to the character's actions, the movie felt like it could be real (despite the magical realism of her 'superpower'). There was just enough cussing or just enough teen angst to make the dialogue (or sometimes lack thereof) seem absolutely real. It was never really overdone at all. The movie was quirky, but not too quirky to where--with something like Juno--it seems made-up. And the characters aren't your typical Hollywood cardboard cutouts (the jerk boyfriend, the faultless lead female). The characters had depth and ranges of emotions. But I'm just not sure whether or not it worked for this film and with what it was trying to accomplish. As I said, it made the main character come off as completely unlikable and unsympathetic.

As such, this is a very strange movie to review. Part of me wants to give it a really high score due to these streaks of brilliance. But the other part of me is fighting that urge for any or all of the aforementioned reasons. I can compare a handful of things about it to Twilight, which isn't remotely a good thing. At least the writing and dialogue is better. The cinematography was really good; the movie looked great. And the music was decent. I suppose, overall, I'm gonna go, as usual, with entertainment value over more technical aspects (writing, etc.). So with that said...

I Am McLovin!

G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA.

Before I get into this review, I want to--yet again--discuss a theater experience during this film. First, I wasn't even excited to see this movie, to say straight away. I never played with GI Joe's, never knew any of the characters or any of their stories. But the movie looked to be one of those "so bad it's good" films. I just kinda went to the theater on a whim while I was in the area, and it was between this and The Perfect Getaway, but by the time I got there, the next showing for Perfect Getaway wasn't for a while, and GI Joe started in about 15 minutes. That being said, let me go into the actual theater experience.

There were really only two things this time around. The first was highly annoying, and the second had to be the strangest theater experience yet. The first was a little boy, maybe 2 or 3 years old, who sat behind me. And he literally (no hyperbole here) never shut up, not even for 1 second. If he wasn't talking or rambling or asking the same question 5 times in a row without giving anybody time to answer, he was singing or making incoherent noises. And all of this he was doing loud enough for the entire theater to hear him. And the most the mother (or whomever) would tell him was "shh." I'm a relatively laid back person and I'm not really easy to anger. I never tell off anybody in the theater (or otherwise, really). But this had to be the closest I'd ever come to cussing out both a toddler and his mother in public without care of consequence (again, keeping in mind that I didn't even care about this movie... that's how annoying it was).

Now, the second thing was just strange. Two seats to my right there was a little girl, maybe 9 or 10 years old (at the most). There was an empty seat between us. Let me briefly describe her film-going experience. During the entire previews portion, she had her head turned toward me, which I could easily see out the corner of my eye. I'd look at her, and she's staring up at the far wall (maybe a light fixture)... just... staring. Her body doesn't move an inch, nor does her head. She just stares. The movie starts and she faces forward... but only for a couple minutes. Then she does something with her phone before getting up and leaving for about 15 minutes. When she comes back, she sits back down and, yet again, I can see her face staring in my general direction. I look over again, and her eyes are closes, and her hands go from pressed to folded. And then she makes the sign of the cross. She was praying. So she goes to watch the film for a few minutes before I see her staring in my direction again. Then she gets up and leaves for another 10-15 minutes. When she comes back... yes, you guessed it... more staring. Eventually, she leans forward with her head between her legs and starts playing with a pile of spilled popcorn that's on the floor, and I'm sitting there wondering if she's found Jesus' face in it or something. Once she's done with that, again, turned toward me, though I believe she was sleeping this time. And it wasn't long after that when the movie ended.

So, with the peripheral distraction and the kid I wanted to smack in a movie I was only minimally intrigued in at best... I give you my review of GI Joe. The movie is about Duke (Channing Tatum) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans), who find themselves involved with a special ops departement called GI Joe, run by General Hawk (Dennis Quaid). Other members include Snake Eyes (Ray Park), Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), and Breaker (Said Taghmaoui). They're fighting against a group of baddies run by McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) and The Doctor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), but also include Ana (Sienna Miller), Storm Shadow (Byung-hun Lee), and Zartan (Arnold Vosloo). The baddies are after some bio-chemical weapons that, well, they made in the first place. And each side has super-enhancement weapons and whatnot.

Honestly, story-wise, the movie both does and doesn't make sense. It has its share of logic or plot holes. One of the most annoying being that the Neo-Vipers (or whatever they're called) are stated toward the beginning to not feel pain or have emotions, but they sure do show both when they're being killed. But really, it isn't about the story.

The only redeeming factor in this movie is its action. I have to say, honestly, this movie does have some pretty cool action. The CGI is hit or miss, but the action is pretty dang good. The only real disappointment in the action department was that (and especially with Ray Park involved) the fight scenes between Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow could have been so much cooler (and longer) than they were. But for the most part, the action scenes were inventive, fun, and overall entertaining.

The acting isn't the greatest, either, really. In fact, it's pretty spotty. Stephen Sommers actually brings in a few of his Mummy alums for various roles, such as the mummy himself, Arnold Vosloo. And there are a couple interesting though mostly wasted cameos, like Brendan Fraser and Kevin J. O'Connor. Casting Marlon Wayans was mostly a waste, as well, because the writing of the movie tried too hard to be funny and fell flat on its face. There's maybe one good joke, and it's not good enough to get more than a weak chuckle.

As I said, the CGI is hit or miss. Some of it is really good. Some of it is really bad. Parts of it are mostly unnecessary. And the rest of it looks like Watchmen leftovers--very comic book-ish. Luckily, most of the spotty CGI isn't in the action scenes, so that was good, at least.

Overall, despite all the distractions I had, I was still mildly entertained by the action pieces of the film. I also have to say, for the film's credit, the ending was a pretty interesting surprise (though I wonder if it would have been had I not been as distracted as I was). But this is a movie to see for the action. Otherwise, it's really not worth it, at least from a non-fan's perspective.

Stop Saying Okay! Okay.

DVD Review: Chalk.

So guess what? Today I got a teaching job! I'll be teaching high school freshmen English. And in complete irony, I got this movie in Netflix today, as well (I put it on my queue ages ago). So in honor of my new job, I did the stupidest thing possible and actually watched this. Here is my review.

----------------

Chalk is a mockumentary (in a style similar to The Office) about 4 new-to-newish high school educators in Texas. Mr. Lowrey (Troy Schremmer) is a first year history teacher, very nervous and shy, which causes many classroom management issues. Mr. Stroope (Chris Mass) is more comfortable in the classroom, as it's his third year, and he's hoping to win the Teacher of the Year award this time... at any cost. Coach Webb (Jannelle Schremmer) is a second year female coach accused of being gay and rather pushy. And Mrs. Reddell (Shannon Haragan) has moved up from being a teacher to being a first year Assistant Principal... though without realizing how much work it would be and how much strain it would put on her personal life.

To me, Mr. Lowrey is the true main character of the movie. He has the biggest character development and overall story arch. He was the most identifiable. When he was awkward, you felt awkward. When he succeeded, you cheered. When he screwed up, you groaned and cried "why why why?" Mrs. Reddell is the next best character, I suppose, and has the next best development of the group. I didn't care for her as much as I did Lowrey, but you do want her to succeed. And when she finally blows up on Coach Webb, you're like "about time!" 

And speaking of Coach Webb, she starts off OK, an then it goes downhill fast. The same could be said for Mr. Stroope. Both seem to be, at least at first, good teachers. But then everything comes crumbling down. Coach Webb falls apart outside the classroom, while Stroope falls apart within. Webb is just a crazy lady, attacking teachers for not writing up students who were 2 seconds late (and subsequently asking them if they wanted to join her exercise group) and getting pissed when people didn't recycle their water bottles. Stroope, on the other hand, tries to be funny, but half the time at the expense of his students. He tells one student using too big of words to stop doing that because he doesn't understand them and tells another girl who knows more history than him to dumb it down a little so that he looks better (on both counts). He then gets all his students to help campaign for him for the Teacher of the Year and... let's just say it doesn't end pretty.

But Lowrey was the real inspiration of the film. You have no idea how connected I felt to his role, even in the social scenes when he's hanging out with the other teachers or whatever. Granted, I don't think I ever came close to his level of nervousness during my student teaching, but I certainly did experience some of the same classroom management issues (and with a class about three times the size).

Which brings us to one minor quibble. These classes were super tiny, especially for a school that seemed as big as it was (at one point, they mention that the whole school has 80-something phones on campus alone). But there were maybe 7-12 kids per class (or thereabouts). Maybe it's just my personal experience, but small classes usually don't get as rowdy as some of those did. But then again, at the beginning, Mr. Lowrey was pretty awful.

The only other real issue is a dream sequence about halfway into the movie. The movie is documentary-style, so any dream sequence is automatically against the style. I learned afterward that the scene was actually filmed as a joke, but they ended up putting it in the film anyway. I'm not sure that was the best decision.

Overall, the movie was a pretty good representation of the life of a high school teacher. Outside of the Assistant Principal, though, they really didn't get much into how it affected home life. They also didn't address the TAKS test, which I think was a mistake if they were going for realism. Hell, they probably could have done a whole movie about teacher strife in accordance with that thing. But the closest they came to even mentioning it was during a song by the AP where she mentions "no child left behind." 

Otherwise, it was close (some things were too over-the-top, and other things could have been more hardcore... there wasn't enough violence, no gang violence at all, no pregnant girls or people having sex on staircases... no sex talk whatsoever, actually. But I suppose this was more of a movie about teacher hardships and not about realism of student life, so it didn't bother me too much). Some of the things they showed, I experienced (from cell phone issues, student arguments, and even students asking me to free-style rap). Not to mention teachers complaining about other teachers all the time. My biggest problem? With my new news, this movie was too real for me right now, so I probably didn't enjoy it as much as I would have in another year or so. However, it did a great job for the most part--especially the students themselves, who weren't really acting, but being themselves--and I commend it for that.

I Am McLovin!

FUNNY PEOPLE.

I went in to Funny People with low-to-mid expectations, only really going because it was Judd Apatow (and actually Apatow, not just him producing). The trailers did nothing for me but make me feel depressed. They didn't make me laugh at all. But then I hear all these reviews from people saying the movie is hilarious, and I'm taken aback. But still, I go in with low-to-mid expectations, and my expectations were met. Nothing more. Nothing less.

George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a famous actor/comedian who suddenly gains the knowledge that he's dying of a rare blood disease. Ira (Seth Rogen) is a wannabe comic who lives with his friends Leo (Jonah Hill) and Mark (Jason Schwartzman), another up-and-comer who is somewhat famous due to starring in a crappy sitcom. George is a loner and a loser who still pines for his almost-wife, Laura (Leslie Mann), who is married to an Australian businessman, Clarke (Eric Bana). Ira just has a major crush on a fellow comedian, Daisy (Aubrey Plaza), but Mark is only giving him 10 days to make him move or he's making his own. But after an awkward stand-up session, George notices Ira and ends up hiring him on as his assistant to write his jokes and do chores and whatnot for him. And... well, there really isn't much of a plot. It's just these people interacting with each other and how they deal with George's sickness.

And for a movie with not a hell-of-a-lot happening, it really has no reason to be 2 and a half hours long. The movie tries to do too many things, I think, and one idea seems to be pushed to the side for another idea, only then Apatow realizes he should probably wrap up that previous idea, so he has to come back to that.

Is the movie funny? Sometimes. There were no real big belly laughs. It was only a chuckle every now and then, some longer than others, but not much more than that. And after a promising opening, it takes quite a while to get even to that point. But I know what you're saying, "this isn't supposed to be a comedy. It's supposed to be a look into the serious side of comics." Because, really, funny people always have the most depressing lives, it seems. And the movie shows that. Similarly, earlier this year we had Adventureland, another movie marketed as a comedy when it wasn't really. The difference? I think Adventureland worked better as a dramedy and didn't seem to try nearly as hard as Funny People.

I think the best thing about the movie was its cameos. The best scene in the whole movie, ironically, was the one with a non-comedian: Eminem (okay, so Ray Romano was in the scene, too, which led to the best line in the movie). I also loved Bo Burnham, as small of a role as he had. They should have given him more to do. That kid's hilarious (watch either his YouTube stuff or his Comedy Central stand-up).

As for the main cast, they actually acted their respective parts incredibly well. Honestly, everybody did a great acting job. But everybody was a freaking a-hole. In fact, the only characters I full-out liked (besides Seth Rogen's sympathetic everyman) were the two characters who were supposed to be the a-holes of the movie: Jason Schwartzman and Eric Bana. I think those two had the best roles in the movie, particularly Schwartzman. Oh, and I think I have a new celeb crush on Aubrey Plaza. She looked amazing in this movie... and she acted well, too, of course. But seriously, besides a couple characters, everybody is near hatable, including Sandler's George, who is the worst of the bunch on the hate-o-meter. I don't think I once felt sympathy for his character, and the ending seemed a bit forced in trying to get you to like him before the credits rolled.

All-in-all, I might enjoy it more after another watch, though it might be a while before that happens. It is a good movie. I liked it. But my biggest fault with Apatow's Knocked Up was that it was way too serious (and probably, if it weren't for Ken Jeong at the end, I don't think I would have liked it too much). Not to mention that movie was also filled with unlikable characters. Apatow did the opposite of what I would have liked. He amped up the drama and the unlikable characters and decreased the funny to the point where the movie mostly feels unbalanced. At least the a-holes in 40-Year-Old-Virgin were charming and funny, mostly due to the wit of the film. The only other thing I can say about this film is that, surprisingly, the cinematography/camera work was really good. It was really different than the other two films. It was more experimental and cinematic, I think. Anyway, my score is probably surprising due to my negative comments, but I honestly did enjoy the film for what it was.

I Am McLovin!